I have no clue why people defend the Reagan Administration - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-19-2002, 12:48 AM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:53 AM
1. Ok, if you have a evidence of US money purchasing Soviet Military Combat Equipment for Iraq, lets see it. What weapon systems were purchased with this money and in what quantity? Keep in mind that Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves on the planet and is not exactly strapped for cash to the degree that many other countries are. Considering the fact that they had 2,000 troops and advisors in Iraq during the 1980s and in addition to the vast oil wealth of the country, It does not appear that the Soviets would have demanded funds up front for weapons if Iraq was short on funds temporarily. Iraq is still in debt billions of dollars to the "Former Soviet Union"(sanctions started in August of 1990 on Iraq), but there is nothing that shows the Soviets ever withheld any military equipment that Iraq requested. Given the large Soviet influence in the country(2,000 troops), Iraq most likely recieved aid they had never even thought of. Iraqi strategy and tactics, military organization, are all model after the Soviet military.

2. A Missile Targeting system? For what missile? Are we talking SSM, SAM, or ATGWs?

3. there are links to nearly every single country that had normal trade relations with Iraq when it comes to chemical and Biological weapons. Unless the country had sanctions imposed on Iraq at the time, nearly every single industrialized country was open for trade with Iraq to include products or substances that have duel uses for military and medical technology. Iraq also had the capability of producing many of these weapons without foreign aid back in the 1980s. Also, Iraq already had significant chemical, Biological, and nuclear weapons facilities(a reactor) and abilities(in regard to the first two) before Reagan was even elected into office.
Without global economic sanctions against Iraq in the 1980s, the Iraqi's could have gotten what ever duel use technology they supposedly recieved from the USA from over a dozen other countries.

Its correct to say that the global community through free trade indirectly aided Iraq in its pursuit of the development of chemical and Biological weapons because science and medical equipment, substances can have an alternative military use. Iraq is definitely not the only country that benifited from international trade this way.

Lets go back though to the article's title "How We Helped Create Saddam". Its a bit absurd when you look at who really helped Saddam create his war machine. Which country sold the most military equipment to Iraq? Which country invested large amounts of money to train the Iraqi military? Which country had military soldiers and advisors stationed in Iraq on a permanent basis from the 1960s to late 1990 to help them(2,000 troops) ? Which country, if any, deserves the title of: the Creater of Saddam? The facts above, which Newsweek decided not to mention, answer these questions.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 03:02 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Sting
Bama
Arun-
Thank you all for your contributons to this thread.

I think its easy to b an arm-chair quater-back, re issuses decades later..We only are privy to a sliver of info at the time it is actually occuring.a sliver
This is a mistake of some partisan-folk..

Peace
-diamond-
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 10:11 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,269
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Re: I have no clue why people defend the Reagan Administration

Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V
It's ridiculous...look at almost every major place teh US is concerned with now. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan. All places that recieved arms and support from the Reagan administration. It's a shame that most of the terrorists we fight now were actually funded by perhaps the most inept and short sighted administration to date ( I'm not counting this one till it's over).


We gave Iraq monye and arms to fight iran...now we're fighting a war with iraq, and iran hates us..brilliant. We gave Afghanistan the ability to fight off the soviets and ended up fighting a war there. And then Pakistan which is terrorist state, now needs to be propped up in order to keep nuclear arms out of extremists hands.....they dont' mention that the nuclear deployment prgram pakistan built was with US help from the reagan administration do they? The man was an actor not a president, and the fact that he is was the most popular president in US history is a shame on us Americans. He made people believe that nicaragua and El salvador were threats to the US which perhaps is one of the most profound dupings of the american people in history.


Bottom line the last 10 years of the last century and the next 50 of this one are going to be mopping up for the reagan adminisration..ended communism...hardly...china still exists people. Also...I'd liek to point out that regimes like iraq restrict freedoms a lot more than the Soviets ever did.

The american people made mistakes...I hope we learn from them. And lets' hope that whatever is done with iraq doesn't bite us in the ass again. the Reagan administration was perhaps the Greatest failure in terms of the long term protection of the american people.


also....bin laden...was a creation of the Reagan administration.


Our entire war on terror...is a result of shortsighted and in fact down right idiotic policies durign the 80's

*waits for diamond to put up a futile argument*
Ooh.

Well said.

And HeartlandGirl, I agree-so what if we were rather young when Reagan took office. If we study his presidency enough, we can be able to voice our opinions, too.

And to the person who said "Damn kids" simply because the person who started this topic is young...my parents didn't like Reagan, either, okay? It's not just "us kids" who are saying this stuff, there's adults I know that didn't like Reagan, either.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 02:07 PM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:53 PM

Listen
My Dad hated Clinton but Im sorta ok w Clinton.
My point Angela is that maybe we r taught to hate politicians just becuz our parents did..

diamond
damn kids
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 02:44 PM   #50
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 06:53 AM
Quote:
My point Angela is that maybe we r taught to hate politicians just becuz our parents did..
Doesn't that sort of disprove your own point, though? Inversely, we are also taught to love politicians because our parents did. Right?

My point is, that doesn't really make anybody's opinion any less valid, including yours.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 04:52 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,269
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony


Doesn't that sort of disprove your own point, though? Inversely, we are also taught to love politicians because our parents did. Right?

My point is, that doesn't really make anybody's opinion any less valid, including yours.

Ant.
Good point.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-21-2002, 06:39 PM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:53 PM

Yes to both of those...
The pt is..we as educated indivuals need to examine the issues and then make our decisions regardless of who our folks love or hate..
Whew!

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-22-2002, 02:03 PM   #53
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 06:53 AM
Quote:
The pt is..we as educated indivuals need to examine the issues and then make our decisions regardless of who our folks love or hate..
I'll drink to that. However, what kind of educated decision is that of one that chooses to put someone who, in your own words, is clearly 'not the brightest of guys'?

What I'm trying to figure out, is why would you consider voting for such a person?

Ant/
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 09-22-2002, 02:13 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony



What I'm trying to figure out, is why would you consider voting for such a person?

Ant/
Most of us didn't!!!!!!!!

Dang electoral college!!!!!

Peace to all!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-22-2002, 04:28 PM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony


I'll drink to that. However, what kind of educated decision is that of one that chooses to put someone who, in your own words, is clearly 'not the brightest of guys'?

What I'm trying to figure out, is why would you consider voting for such a person?

Ant/
Ant
My view is that u dont have to have the highest IQ or be the brighest star to b a good leader..

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 09:02 AM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,269
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

Ant
My view is that u dont have to have the highest IQ or be the brighest star to b a good leader..

DB9
Actually...I'd personally prefer to have someone in the White House who may not necessarily be a genius, but is still very intelligent as it is. I'd like to have someone in the White House who doesn't have to have a book made with all the things he's said wrong and mispronounced, for example.

*Shrugs*

That's just what I think.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 11:26 AM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Actually...I'd personally prefer to have someone in the White House who may not necessarily be a genius, but is still very intelligent as it is. I'd like to have someone in the White House who doesn't have to have a book made with all the things he's said wrong and mispronounced, for example.

*Shrugs*

That's just what I think.

Angela
Angela-
Has it ever occured to you that in our day and age UNLIKE past generations..that EVERYWORD is recorded by a President.
Ppl that oppose him -that have a motive or agenda then release every mis pronounced/mangled word as propoganda?

Think about it.
Just a little, ok?

Peace

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-11-2002, 05:51 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Elvis
LOL.

I can't wait to see dave --intelligently-- debate this.

*cough*
All I will say to you guys is THIS-
-Joel you were in the first or second grade when I first voted for Reagan w my older brother Mr. deep in 1980.
-Arun wasnt even a twinkle in Dr Vs eye..
-Lilly same as Arun.

I suspect you were brought up in Democratic households
Youve been "indoctrinated" to think a certain way..just as I was.

I try not to now.

What are country was coming thru at that time was-
The Carter years.

Iran was kicking our ass for 2 yrs w The Iranian Hostage Crisis
Carter appeared flustered worried and inept almost re this crisis.
The American Military was shunned thru-out the world.
American Servicemen were dispised during this time.
Inflation was outta control.
Gas prices sky-rocketed..
Interst rates were 16-19 percent to buy a home.

Our country was hurting.

Reagan came along.
He pyscologically made you feel "good" to be an American again
The Iranian hostages were released IMMEDEATELY.
Many many flustered Democrats voted for Reagan.
They were called "Reagan Democrats" back then..
I dont think your folks voted for Reagan
Hope this post enlightens you..just a tad

jackass-kids

-diamond-
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-11-2002, 08:28 PM   #59
us3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 165
Local Time: 10:53 PM
written Jan 2001.....


A Mash-Note
Reagan was right about almost everything.

He will turn 90 this Tuesday, but in all likelihood he will barely be aware of it. The cruelty of Alzheimer's has robbed Ronald Reagan of the capacity for clear memory. But that doesn't apply to the rest of us. He seems, in some respects, an historical oddity now, his political and cultural presence obscured in America by the Clinton psychodrama and the Bush dynasty. But the truth is, his successors do not begin to compare – either in achievement or legacy. Reagan is still, in my view, the architect of our modern world, and nowhere is this clearer than in the United States.

Reagan stood for two simple but indisputably big things: the expansion of freedom at home and the extinction of tyranny abroad. He achieved both. When he came to office, top tax rates in the United States were in the 70 percent range. Against the odds, Reagan slashed the top rate to 28 percent and ignited an economic boom that, in some respects, is still with us. Bill Clinton nudged taxes up a little, but to nowhere near the levels of the Carter's America, and all signs now point to a reduction this year back to Reagan levels. But unlike George W. Bush, and certainly unlike the hopelessly confused Michael Portillo, Reagan understood what tax cuts were about. Back in 1976, he made the case in one of his innumerable radio addresses, the transcripts of which have just been released by the Free Press in a mammoth 500 page tome. The little speech was called, "America's Strength." Here's the relevant passage (in his idiosyncratic style), just excerpted in the Weekly Standard:

"Our system freed the individual genius of man. Released him to fly as high & as far as his own talent & energy would take him. We allocate resources not by govt. decision but by the mil's. of decisions customers make when they go into the mkt. place to buy. If something seems too high-priced we buy something else. Thus resources are steered toward those things the people want most at the price they are willing to pay. It may not be a perfect system but it's better than any other that's ever been tried."

Classic Reagan. Simple. Intelligible. True. Some people believe he was a moron, incapable of argument or intellectual engagement. A brief perusal through these dozens of talks will put the lie to that. He wrote constantly, and grappled directly and bravely with the main issues of his day. He was a believer in the press and the media as a way to communicate as powerfully as possible ideas that could change lives. In this sense, he was one of the most intellectual presidents in history. He took great pain with words, and spent a lifetime learning how to craft them.

And if he was right about taxation and the role of government, he was also right about the other great question of his day: the Soviet Union. "Détente," he remarked in a 1975 speech. "Isn't that what a farmer has with a turkey – until Thanksgiving?" I will never forget the moment I heard his "evil empire" speech. It was broadcast on Radio Four in snippets, festooned with sceptical British commentary about this inflammatory and dangerous new president, this cowboy who knew nothing about geo-politics or the complexities of late-Communism. But for all the criticism, what came through to my teenage brain was an actual truth. Yes, the Soviet Union was evil. Who now doubts that? But who in a position of power said so when it mattered? Barely no-one but Reagan. He alone saw that communism was destined to be put on the "ash-heap of history," as he told the House of Commons. And he helped put it there. His achievement in this respect was so monumental that a whole generation of former peaceniks now take it for granted. Think of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. In the 1980s, they were nuclear freeze supporters. And yet both now thoughtlessly enjoy the soft and easy fruits of a greater man's courage.

The critics harp on the enormous deficits of the Reagan era, and see them as an indictment of all he stood for. But the truth is, federal revenues boomed on Reagan's watch. Tax cuts didn't destroy public finances – they helped them. What created the deficits was an unprecedented increase in defence spending – the bargaining chip that eventually forced the Soviets to surrender. And you could easily argue that this was a price worth paying for an early end to an extremely expensive conflict. Thanks to the peace dividend of the post-Cold War world, and the free market expansion that Ronald Reagan initiated, America is now enjoying record surpluses. Even the straggling defenders of perestroika now concede that Reagan's intransigence and skill speeded the collapse of the Soviet empire. The deficits, from the standpoint of history, were therefore a fiscal bargain. In the long run, they paid for themselves.

And on most of the current pressing issues, Reaganism still has plenty of credibility. The main cloud on the fiscal horizon – the long-term insolvency of the government-run pension system – stems from a program Reagan opposed. The partial privatization of the program that George W. Bush is now contemplating is straight out of the Reagan hand-book. The most significant change in American social policy in the 1990s – the end of the federal welfare entitlement – was also presaged by Reagan. In the early 1970s, when Reagan was governor of California, the question of whether to federalize that entitlement was in front of the National Governors' Association. The governors voted to have Washington guarantee the benefit 49 – 1. Guess who the hold-out was. It took thirty years and Bill Clinton to finally recognize the validity of Reagan's point. And Reagan's unlikeliest dream – nuclear missile defence – is also still with us. Lampooned at the time as "Star Wars," it will soon regain the preeminence it deserves in America's military defence, as Donald Rumsfeld aggressively moves it forward.

The contrast with Clinton couldn't be clearer. Clinton was a group-hugger, a man in command of every detail of government, a sex-addict, even to being fellated by a staffer in the White House itself, obsessed with the press, fixated on spin, devoted to polls. Reagan was aloof, distant even from his own family, focussed on a few important themes and a delegator of everything else. He was devoted to his second wife with a romantic zeal that even now impresses, a man who wore a coat and tie at all times in the Oval Office, a room he considered something close to sacred. He was also pricelessly funny. It is not apocryphal that, as he was wheeled into the operating room after a bullet almost took his life, he looked at the solemn, green-suited doctors and said, "Please tell me you're Republicans." The morning after, respiratory tubes stuck down his throat, he could only scribble jokes.On a pink piece of paper, he wrote to his wife, "I'd like to do this scene again - starting at the hotel." The other week, in preparation for Clinton's farewell address, the television networks included a snippet from one of Reagan's last speeches as president. He said of his impending retirement, "I'm looking forward to going home at last, putting my feet up and taking a good long nap." Pause. "I guess it won't be that much different after all."

Reagan cared about public opinion – but only so he knew best how to challenge and shape it. It never shaped him. He didn't need spin. He had faith. A natural populist, Reagan spent hours as president hand-writing letters to friends and often obscure pen-pals from around the country he had befriended some time in the past – never dreaming for a second that he was too important to ignore such little tasks of courtesy. He was a democrat to his fingertips who didn't need a 'common touch' because he was so effortlessly a common man himself.

Except, of course, he was anything but. It takes time to recognize greatness and it sometimes appears in the oddest of forms. A B-actor from Hollywood, a cold fish, a man unknown even to his own children at times, a hack-radio announcer for General Electric, and easily the finest president of the last fifty years. When he dies, this country will go into shock. For Americans know in their hearts that this unlikely man understood the deepest meaning of their country in a way no-one else has done for a generation. He gave them purpose again, and in return they still give him love. For what it's worth, let me now add my own.

Copyright: Andrew Sullivan
__________________
us3 is offline  
Old 10-12-2002, 03:06 AM   #60
Refugee
 
Foxxern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,284
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

Angela-
Has it ever occured to you that in our day and age UNLIKE past generations..that EVERYWORD is recorded by a President.
Ppl that oppose him -that have a motive or agenda then release every mis pronounced/mangled word as propoganda?
Past generations, right. Like way back in the time of Clinton and even Bush Sr. Man, how many years has it been since then? Must be like... 2?

Bush isn't a great speaker. Accept it.
__________________

__________________
Foxxern is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com